WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT COMMISSION v. RELIABLE LIMOUSINE SERVICE, LLC
1:12-cv-00576
| D.D.C. | Oct 18, 2013Background
- WMATC alleged Rodberg and RLBS conducted unauthorized for-hire passenger transport within WMATC jurisdiction.
- The February 6, 2013 order permanently enjoined Rodberg and RLS from such transport without WMATC authorization.
- RLBS began transporting passengers within the Metropolitan District without WMATC authorization after the order.
- WMATC sought sanctions; default judgment entered February 6, 2013 enjoining defendants directly or indirectly.
- WMATC moved for contempt; show cause ordered to determine if RLBS aided and abetted and was in privity with Rodberg.
- Court clarified the injunction to explicitly enjoin RLBS and any Rodberg-controlled entities, based on privity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court jurisdiction to modify while appeal pending | Maintain authority to preserve status quo. | Lacks jurisdiction during appeal to modify. | Court has jurisdiction to modify/clarify injunction on appeal. |
| RLBS bound by injunction via privity | RLBS in privity with Rodberg; subject to injunction. | RLBS not bound because not a named party. | RLBS is in privity with Rodberg and bound; injunction clarified to cover RLBS. |
| Due process in clarifying injunction against non-parties | Non-parties may be bound via Rule 65(d)(2) and contempt process. | Clarification infringes day in court for RLBS. | Due process satisfied; RLBS had opportunity to contest privity; allowed a compliance window. |
Key Cases Cited
- Regal Knitwear Co. v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 9 (Supreme Court 1945) (decree binds those in privity or aiding and abetting)
- United States v. Westinghouse Elec. Co., 46 F.3d 1198 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (inherent power to modify injunctions to preserve status quo)
- United Shoe Machinery Corp., 391 U.S. 244 (Supreme Court 1968) (standard to modify decrees to achieve required result)
- Philip Morris USA Inc., 566 F.3d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 2009) ( Rule 65(d) binds nonparties similarly to privity concept)
- Regal Knitwear Co. (additional reference in text), 324 U.S. 14 (Supreme Court 1945) (aiders and abettors concept in injunctive enforcement)
- Jefferson Sch. of Soc. Sci. v. Subversive Activities Control Bd., 331 F.2d 76 (D.C. Cir. 1963) (test for privity between parent and subsidiary)
- Microsystems Software, Inc. v. Scandinavia Online AB, 226 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2000) (due process and contempt context for nonparties)